Garret,
On 1 Aug 2007, at 21:38, Garret Wilson wrote:
> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> Not having been involved in any of this, I wouldn't be surprised
>> if there wasn't a fair bit of pressure from the W3C community to
>> have a notion of datatype in RDF that could be more-or-less
>> consistent with datatypes used in other W3C efforts (say, XML
>> Schema and XQuery). Surely that would be a good enough reason,
>> even if it might not be the best technical reason.
>
> That's probably a good idea---I want to use the way XML Schema
> models integers and booleans and such.
>
> That doesn't mean we have to create some new thing called
> rdfs:Literal in the RDF model. We could just as easily construct a
> URI identifier from the XML Schema datatype URI, combined with the
> lexical form in question. This would allow integers and such to be
> used just like any other RDF resource, but could leverage all the
> semantics provided by XML Schema.
rdfs:Literal is not what you think. From your writing, it sounds as
if you believe that rdfs:Literal is the class of all things that are
represented as "foo"^^ex:bar in the RDF abstract syntax (what you
call the â€œRDF modelâ€